I really think the original purpose of Burqas are to block the sunlight and sandstorms from entering their faces and damaging their skins. In that context I think it would be fine.

But I don't see any reason to wear it if you're in a fairly sheltered area.

I think that the books are fairly irrelevant in a modern context and it's a shame that people take it so literally.

Scripturalism in any faith, particularly solo scripture, seems like a good indication of a dead religion to me. Dead religions are more dangerous than living ones because they inspire a lot of people who are terrified of their private doubts or despair and find crazy, often deadly, ways of compensating.

I'm not convinced that the burqas are to do with the conditions of islam in its genesis or original context, ie the desert, there continued use definitely is not, I believe its about a kind of weak and unmanly view of mens capacity to control themselves, their sex drives etc. In that view men are little better than dogs or animals.

Scripturalism in any faith, particularly solo scripture, seems like a good indication of a dead religion to me. Dead religions are more dangerous than living ones because they inspire a lot of people who are terrified of their private doubts or despair and find crazy, often deadly, ways of compensating.

I'm not convinced that the burqas are to do with the conditions of islam in its genesis or original context, ie the desert, there continued use definitely is not, I believe its about a kind of weak and unmanly view of mens capacity to control themselves, their sex drives etc. In that view men are little better than dogs or animals.

Actually, based on what I've heard about fundamentalist Islam, it seems to teach that women have voracious sexual appetites, and that this is why they must be covered. Christianity also had the idea that women were the sexually voracious ones incapable of chastity; this didn't change until relatively recently. Views change . . .

Actually, based on what I've heard about fundamentalist Islam, it seems to teach that women have voracious sexual appetites, and that this is why they must be covered. Christianity also had the idea that women were the sexually voracious ones incapable of chastity; this didn't change until relatively recently. Views change . . .

I've never ever ever ever this side of the story... and I've lived several years in Muslim countries.

The answer is NO. You're dead wrong. The Coran tells exactly the opposite, that MEN have voracious sexual appetites, and that this is why women must be covered or else Men would feel the need to rape them.
And the Sharia as it is implemented in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan supports this position, since women who are raped are sentenced to jail because men are considered to be innocent and incapable to repress their instinct when they face a "sexually provocative woman".

"A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

I've never ever ever ever this side of the story... and I've lived several years in Muslim countries.

The answer is NO. You're dead wrong. The Coran tells exactly the opposite, that MEN have voracious sexual appetites, and that this is why women must be covered or else Men would feel the need to rape them.
And the Sharia as it is implemented in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan supports this position, since women who are raped are sentenced to jail because men are considered to be innocent and incapable to repress their instinct when they face a "sexually provocative woman".

Well, my source is considered reputable. But if you're sure it is the opposite, then I'll have to conclude that it's an open question for me.

Actually, based on what I've heard about fundamentalist Islam, it seems to teach that women have voracious sexual appetites, and that this is why they must be covered. Christianity also had the idea that women were the sexually voracious ones incapable of chastity; this didn't change until relatively recently. Views change . . .

I know what you are talking about but the role of woman as "temptress" is as old as genesis, which is as old as the founders of all the three major abrahamic religions.

Whether they are voratious in their sexual appetites or not would seem to matter not in contrast to their role, in the first stories about men and women and how they relate, as tempting men to do things and disobey God.

You are right that the traditions exist in Christianity too which insisted upon women being covered up, as recently as one or two generations ago in Ireland in the roman catholic traditions it was insisted that women cover their heads in sacred places, it survives in Spain in some regions or churches and I have seen how tourists will be asked to rent shawls, women must cover their heads, men must uncover their heads or remove hats.

There are religious basis and foundations often but a lot of these things are cultural too.

Well, my source is considered reputable. But if you're sure it is the opposite, then I'll have to conclude that it's an open question for me.

There is no reason why both positions are not correct, its often the case that paradoxical views such as this exist and are asserted by superordinate sources seeking to subordinate others and keep it that way.

I really think the original purpose of Burqas are to block the sunlight and sandstorms from entering their faces and damaging their skins. In that context I think it would be fine.

But I don't see any reason to wear it if you're in a fairly sheltered area.

I think that the books are fairly irrelevant in a modern context and it's a shame that people take it so literally.

I think the Quran is quite tolerant, especially compared to other books such as sharia and hadith. Sadly modern day Muslims follows the latter books as much as the Quran or even more.

Also, if something is irrelevant to the modern context that might be a good indicator that it was written purely to form good behaviour among its followers in a certain era and it's not an all knowing Holy book of absolute truth (that should be followed by everyone).

I think the Quran is quite tolerant, especially compared to other books such as sharia and hadith. Sadly modern day Muslims follows the latter books as much as the Quran or even more.

Also, if something is irrelevant to the modern context that might be a good indicator that it was written purely to form good behaviour among its followers in a certain era and it's not an all knowing Holy book of absolute truth (that should be followed by everyone).

I think that there are different epochs, with their own culture hues and colours, fashions and vogues and opinions but there are also perennial things like wisdom and properly understood the religions, their literature and traditions, are attempts to know this and reflect it properly.